Some Philosophizing About Conflict

War/fighting:
The ultimate form of conflict is war: groups of people
engaged in a protracted fight (including civil war, revolutionary
war, gang war, etc.). In the literal sense, the term war is
reserved for describing a conflict between groups of people
rather than individuals. But within the context of the
types of conflicts being distinguished in this essay,
a hate-filled relationship between individuals is aptly
described as war — it is more than
just a metaphor. Although the tools are rarely
instruments of destruction, there is a persistent desire
to inflict harm and suffering. Fights are more like
battles, but the latter term is reserved for engagements
within a war, whereas the former term generally describes
short-term incidents between individuals or small
groups.

Argument: Arguments can also be conflicts. Arguments
are more like battles or fights in being single
events, whereas protracted disagreement is more
comparable to war ("cold war", if argument
is infrequent). Arguments can be concerned with property,
moral issues, or the nature of reality. Ethnic conflicts have
components of argument and components of war.

Competition: Competition represents a kind
of conflict that often occurs between business-people
seeking customers, politicians seeking voters, and
suitors seeking lovers — among others. Competition
is initially more focused on the resource being sought than
on the competitors, which makes the antagonism less
personal — at least at first.
Common law countries generally have
an adversarial legal system that uses
competition between advocates to discover truth in a
court case. Buyers and sellers
can be said to be in competition for money, but
subjective value
theory shows there is mutual benefit to the relationship
between buyers and sellers. The employer-employee relationship
can be viewed as the buying and selling of labor (rejecting
exploitation
theory), and need not be a conflict.
Arguments, of course, can arise within any
type of human relationship.

Games: Games are a kind of competition
that is not a contest for a resource (when not
done professionally). Games are scheduled conflicts guided
by rules, and usually engaged-in for entertainment
— at least providing entertainment for an audience.
Even war can have rules, although it is difficult
to understand why those rules may be observed, or
how they could be enforced. Probably the strongest
incentive is the thought of the use of forbidden
tactics leading to their use by the enemy.

Wars fought for wealth, territory, or power lack the
initial enmity associated with religious wars or wars
of ethnic hatred. Bitterness by those who are victims of
attack can be swift. As war proceeds it becomes
increasingly difficult to distinguish between
attacker and defender. Some persons view war as
a kind of game, without much regard for the lives
of others — and sometimes without much regard
for their own lives.

Arguments can be components of persuasion
or can be an intellectually stimulating game. Or arguments
can be bitter, accompanied by anger, accusations, and
insults. Conflicts
between spouses or lovers have the quality of ongoing argument
(disagreement), but can erupt into fights. Disagreements
between anyone can be amicable — without any ill feeling
or disrespect. Or such feelings can be very temporary.

Competition among business-people can become emotional,
but it is rarely a personal matter, whereas a competition
between politicians or suitors is typically among the
most deeply personal forms of conflict —
often leading to acrimonious argument.

Games can be lighthearted fun or bitter
contests. In games, an able competitor contributes
to the fun — as long as the competitor is
not excessively able.
Hockey players and boxers easily develop
bitter enmity — which may be part of the
entertainment for the observers. Team sports can
engender feelings of comradeship among teammates, and
a warlike spirit of chauvinism against opposing
teams. Nonetheless, there is opportunity for
argument and competition within team members.

When injury and frustration increases as conflict
proceeds, anger or hatred can readily increase also —
in war, in arguments, and in games. Some people
seem to get pleasure from the adrenalin associated
with acrimonious conflicts. Others will avoid the
simplest argument out of a desire to "get along".

Winning games usually requires knowledge of the
rules and requires adeptness at operating within
those rules — which can involve physical
or mental skills. Practice and heredity provide
physical skills, whereas mental skills may additionally
require study. Many books exist that explain how
to win at poker, chess, bridge, etc. There are also
manuals explaining the principles of
winning a war and
business competition.

Psychological studies have shown that speaking first
gives an advantage in a public debate where one speaker
immediately follows another. The greater the time
separating the presentations of the two speakers, the
more the advantage will shift to the second speaker.

General principles for winning in conflicts involve
strategy and tactics — or more generally, good
planning, good decision-making and good thinking.
The distinction between strategy and tactics in the
context of war can be generalized to planning
and decision-making. Tactics refers to tasks
and decisions determined under pressure from an
adversary, whereas
strategy refers to more long-term planning
and decision-making. Some people prefer to
deal with situations and seize opportunities
as they arise, but this short-sighted approach
is often unlikely to produce good results. Planning
is less important for winning in basketball or
badminton than it is in war, business competition,
football, debate, or chess.

Anger is more often directed against an event or action
rather than a person, as exemplified by anger over
an action by a loved one — where love and anger
can coexist. Hatred, by contrast, is associated with
the desire to see or cause harm to the object of hatred.
Anger is typically temporary, whereas hatred is a
sustained emotion. It is tempting to call hatred a
sustained form of anger. Anger and hatred is generally
directed against persons or groups, but many people
can have these feelings toward malfunctioning machinery.
Envy and resentment of wealth or success is a frequent
stimulous for hatred or even moral outrage.

Hate is a four-letter word that people often will
refuse to see applied to themselves. Being seen as a
hater or an initiator of nastiness can make the hater
look worse than the object of hatred. Moral outrage,
by contrast, is a form of hostility that is often
regarded as justified. To transform hatred into moral
outrage haters must convince themselves or others that
the object of hatred is objectively evil (something
they generally believe, anyway). Passionate haters can
be extremely imaginative in finding and imposing the
worst possible interpretations upon available
information. Mistakes are described as permanent
character defects rather than things that can be
corrected — that is what the hater wants to
believe. A hate campaign thus becomes a public-spirited
endeavor.

Momentary anger can lead to a fight, whereas
hatred is an enduring feeling more characteristic
of war. In this context, it is not inappropriate to
use the term "war" to describe an enduring
conflict between individuals or groups. Conflict motivated
by anger or hate has the goal of hurting or harming
the adversary. In a war or fight over property it
may be a sufficient goal to subdue or drive-away
the enemy. Both parties are usually injured to some
extent by fighting, but where anger or hatred are
strong, the desire to harm can exceed concern about
injury. Suicide bombers are an extreme example of this.

Although anger can be momentary, it can be repeatedly
re-activated. Anger is readily provoked by the object
of hatred. Sustained anger may be the equivalent of
hatred. Expressions of hatred are not easily distinguished
from expressions of anger.

Hatred itself can be costly. The hater suffers from
the offensiveness of the hated, and the hated suffers
the expressions of hostility of the hater. Mutual hatred
is common — or it is common for hatred to become
mutual — it is difficult to like or remain
dispassionate about someone who hates you.
If one group or person finds another intolerable, it
seems more prudent to disassociate rather than maintain
conditions of contact which evoke such feelings. Forced
association in cases where disassociation is not an option leads
to war (in the general sense), even if only "cold war".
There are cases where there is forced association with
an adversarial person who does not regard themselves to
be adversarial. In other cases, an adversary will seek to
conceil adversarial intent for strategic reasons.

Nonetheless, there are those driven by anger or hatred
who will make great efforts to seek-out the object of
their enmity. Desire to cause harm is the prime motivator.
Their enemy may have no appetite for fighting, but
the belligerent will pursue combat as an opportunity
to vent hatred or anger.

Sometimes the identity of the victim is not so important,
such as for someone filled with frustration seeking an
outlet for rage. The attacks are a form of vandalism.

Other times the hatred is very much tied to the identity
of the victim(s) — hated because of who they are, what
they believe in, or things they have done (including mistakes
they may have made). People who hate readily believe negative
information about those they hate (especially that the hated
one lacks integrity and has done bad things) — and discount
or ignore positive information. Facts about those they hate become
twisted in their minds into ugly, distorted images. Emotion
influences belief in everyone, but the mind of the hater
requires only the flimsiest evidence to believe the
worst — or manufactures negative evidence as required
(consciously or unconsciously). Such people seem
as if they are addicted to adrenalin.

When there is no audience for hatred other than the
object of hatred, the hater may enjoy emitting hostility.
Every action or vocalization expresses the sentiment:
"I hate you, I want you to know I hate you, and I
want you to be hurt by the fact that I hate you. I want
to hurt you in any way that I can get away with."
The person or group who is hated can easily be made to look
paranoid — or seen as perpetuating hate —
when attempting to convey the behavior of the hater
to others.

In civilized society, words are the weapons of war. The
hater wishes to portray their enemy in such a way as to
inspire others to hate, contempt, and disrespect the
enemy. The enemy is portrayed as incompetent, dishonest,
worthless, and dangerous. The hater seeks information
about the enemy to support false allegations, to make
mountains out of molehills of small mistakes, and to
aggressively, repeatedly rub salt on the wounds of
larger mistakes. An unscrupulous hater cares little
about the validity of the accusations — any accusations
are justified in a propaganda campaign seen by him
or her as a war against evil — although the
appearance of public-spiritedness must be maintained
if the campaign is to be effective.

When a foe is an implacable hater, the only
possible resolution is to fight until the enemy is
destroyed, subdued, or too war-weary to continue.
If someone hates you for who you are or what you
believe in, accusations are simply weapons —
and answering accusations not only doesn't get
to the root of the problem, it supplies the hater
with more information about you.
Answering accusations can be fruitless and
self-defeating against someone who is a bottomless
pit of accusations as a result of being an implacable
hater. The less such people know about you, the
better off you are. And them more you can avoid
interacting with them, the more they must rely
on their own momentum to maintain their attacks.
By not responding, the interest of an implacable
hater can shift to another outlet that is more
commanding of attention. When there is an audience,
a hater may become self-conscious about being the
persistent initiator of hostilities that can't
be portrayed as public-spirited concerns.

Insults in arguments are inflammatory, and it
is best to ignore them when possible and not
respond in kind. In arguments that play to
an audience, however, it may sometimes be necessary
to correct false allegations without fanning the
flames with counter-accusations. Ignoring allegations
in some contexts can be interpreted as an admission
of guilt. The more public accusations are, the more
important it becomes to answer these accusations publicly,
and the less chance that answering will prove additional
unwanted publicity for the hater. The answer should be
directed to the audience and not the hater —
and should preferably not occur on the hater's
"turf".

Enmity may not be implacable, and it is fruitful
to be on the lookout for opportunities for
resolution, while not fruitlessly wasting effort
on persuading or peacemaking with implacable
enemies. For a rapacious enemy,
attempts to placate will be interpreted as signs
of weakness — and be an invitation for
further aggression.

"Know your enemy" is not only an adage
of use for being able to fight better, but to find
opportunities for resolution. Attempt to understand
the motivations and beliefs of the enemy. Even
if the enemy is an implacable hater, he or she may
have insights into your shortcomings which can help
you become a better person. Even attacks on your
character may be justified — everyone has
character defects. You can make efforts to improve
your character, even if your enemy wishes to
characterize those defects as permanent.

For a fair-minded opponent, there is much to be
gained by trying to understand their point of view.
Actively looking for valid aspects in the views
of another, and granting them respect and
careful attention helps provide a basis for efforts
on their part to understand what you have to say.
Perceptions that are obvious to you may not
be so obvious to your critic. Try to avoid
easily attributing dishonesty, stupidity, or
malicious intent to those who disagree with you.
Egos quickly and easily become bruised in arguments,
and efforts should be made to swallow some
pride and accept looking foolish —
especially when there is no audience. In some cases,
your honesty will be respected for having done so.
But even if not, it may be better to attach your
ego to your humility and ability to learn than
to always "looking good" in an argument.

You should look for validity in criticisms, even
when made in anger. It is possible that your critic
is simply seeking to disparage you, but it is
possible that he or she is simply passionate
about the issue. In the second case, resolution
may be possible, and the first case could nonetheless
be a learning experience.